It;J • "In the Kokkinakis judgment the Court held, in the context of Article 9 (art. 9), thata State may legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct, including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with the respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others (ibid., p. 21, para. 48).The respect for the religious feelings of believers as guaranteed in Article 9 (art. 9) can legitimately be thought to have been violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneraticn.and such portrayals can be regarded as malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which must also be a feature of democratic society. The Convention is to be read as a whole mid . therefore the interpretation and application of Article 10 (art. 10) in the present case must be in harmony with the logic of the Convention (see,mutatis mutandis, the Klass and Others v. Germanyjudgmentof6 September 1978,Series A no. 28, p. 31,para. 68). 48. The measures complained of were based on section 188 of the Austrian Penal Code, which is intended to suppress behaviour directed against objects of religious veneration that' is likely to cause "justified indignation" .It follows that their purpose was to protect the right Of citizens not to be insulted in their religious feelings by the public expression of views of other persons. Considering also the terms in which the decisions of the Austrian courts were phrased, the Court accepts that the impugned measures pursued a legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2), namely "the protection of the rights of others"." JI.::...J("0J\..::..J!G'0.;:.;v.0UlPrlf.' ... ,..... ..• - J.2-j)}if,:;.J1 .. J(" L.;:.;~J,ClPr011J .f'T-'OJiJ.Jj0 ..:.v'~).f.?'i-~jJ~ 1f'1f'1 :,.;:} --?ji ."